JUDGMENT R.M. KliURSIIII), J. - This Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. 1 '>73 was instituted by the petitioner with the prayer that the petitioner be allowed to appear in the interview for his admission to M.Com. (.'lass for the Session 1995-97 on account of his position shown in the merit list at Serial No. 192. It was further prayed that the respondent be directed not lo fill the Vacant seats without allowing the petitioner to appear for interview.
2. Brief facts are that the petitioner passed B. Com. Examination in First Division from the University of Punjab securing 846 marks out of 1300 marks. He applied for admission in M. Com. In Hailey College of Commerce, Lahore, which was stated to be only institution in whole of Punjab, In this context it was contended that total number of 198 seals were allocated for admission to the Academic Session of 1995-97 in the following,manner:-. ' #tbs 102 #to Open merit Seals Reserved for 5 Teachers' Sons
3. Reserved from 5 Employees' Sons,
4. Self Finance Scheme 24 t
5. Foreign Students. 2 198
3. The petitioner applied, but he was not admitted on merit having secured 1146.10 marks according to formula evolved by the respondent for admission to the aforesaid Session. First merit list was prepared on 18.10.1995, second on 25.10.1W5 and third on 3I.10.1W5, hut the petitioner was not shown to have succeeded in the aforesaid lists. Last candidate, who was succcsslul according to third merit list secured grand total marks I I46.X5 as compared to marks obtained hv the petitioner i.e. 1146. It)/.
4. Finally the overall vacant positions of the respondent college were allegedly as under:-
(i) According to third merit list one seal on merit was vacant.
(ii) From Teachers' Sons reserved seats, one seat was also vacant, it was contended that this seat was being converted into open merit and accordingly on this seal admission had been granted to a student who was at serial No. I'M having grand total marks 1146.40.
(iii) Both seats for Foreign Students were still vacant. The College Admission Committee had already moved for permission to convert it into open merit. The matter was till pending with University ol the Punjab.
5. Likewise one successful female candidate got admission in M.B.A, and as such her admission was cancelled. Last merit list was announced for six students instead of Five students, though vine seal was still lying vacant against which the petitioner was allegedly entitled to admission on merit.
6. It was further contended that Mr. Zakar Sharif, Roll No. 36 got his admission cancelled. Another student namely .1 unaid Younas (ihauri Roll No. 3') secured admission in M.B.A, in Bahauddin Zakriya University, Multan and applied for withdrawal of his admission from Hailey College. That seat remained vacant till 15th December, IW5. But the petitioner was not selected against that seat although classes had commenced admittedly from 5th November. IW5. Accordingly to the petitioner two other students namely Muhammad Shehzad Roll No. 33 and another student with Roll No. 57 got admission in M.B.A, in Multan University. The College Admission Committee had allegedly resolved that two seals, which fell vacant due to non-joining of the candidates bearing Roll Nos. 36 and 3l>- be converted into open merit, but this proposal was not proved by the respondent college till the time of tiling of that writ petition.
7. The respondent allegedly departed from the Rules and Policy, because in case of any vacancy, next qualifying candidate was to be called to fill that position. According to the petitioner six seals were still available-One Teachers' Son seat, one Open Merit, two under Self Finance Scheme and two for Foreign students. That the petitioner could be accommodated against any one of these seals considering his merit. It was alleged that since the respondent acted in violation of the Rules and Admission Policy, therefore, the petitioner was deprived of hisfundamenlal rights as enshrined in Articles 22(4) and 25 of the Constitution.
8. The respondent filed comments and denied that Hailey College of Commerce, Lahore was only college in the Punjab for M. Com. Programme, In this respect it was alleged that there was another college in Lahore namely Islamia College of Commerce. There was yet another College conducting M. Com. Classes in Bahauddin Zakriya University, Multan, In reply to paragraph 4, it was contended that 2% seats were reserved for Serial Nos. 2 and 3 each i.e. 4 for each category and not 5. In reply to paragraphs 5 and (>. It was eonlerfded that the students who could not got admission were informed that if any merit seat fell vacant they would stand a chance in order of merit against vacant seal out of 3rd and final merit list.
9. It was further alleged that the College has clear-cut Admission Policy and Regulations approved by the University of Punjab, whereby any reserved seat remaining vacant can be converted into a merit seal with the approval of the Vice Chancellor of the said University. The student securing 1146.40 marks has been in the same manner granted admission in line with the Admission Policy and Regulations. The Foreign Student Seats were filled from the nominees of the Federal (iovernmenl in accordance with the policy.'it was admitted in paragraph 9 that the studentmentioned therein got cancelled hex admission after second list and the seal vacated by her filled up in the 3rd list purely keeping in view the merit criterion. The University Regulations do not permit any new admission after vacant seals were finally filled and the admission process was finally completed. The last student who got admission had grand total marks 1146.40, whereas the petitioner having obtained grand total of 1145.10 never became eligible for admission nor any.Person securing lesser marks than the petitioner was admitted as per merit list, which was annexed with the comments as Annexure-III.
Lt). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent violated the Admission Policy and Regulation by refusing admission to the petitioner in M. Com. Programme. Reservation ol some seals such as Teachers' Sons, Employees' Sons, under Self Finance Scheme and Foreign Students amounted to in-equal treatment and denial of admission against the seals reserved for those categories, had violated the provisions contained in Articles 22 and 24 of the Constitution. An argument was also raised that since the petitioner was on the waiting list and a scat had fallen vacant, therefore, he was entitled to admission against that seat. Denial to fill in that seat allegedly brought irreparable loss to the petitioner as he has to lose academic year for no fault of his on..
Mere fact that there was time-gap of about live months between start of classes and expiry of the time till todate would not debar the petitioner to avail existing vacancy for the purpose of admission.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the argument that the petitioner was given in-cqual treatment <{ita the successful candidates, In this respect it was submitted that the admission was made strictly on merit and in accordance with Rules and Regulations framed by the rcspondent/colfcge with the approval of the Punjab University. The petitioner did not reach to the required merit, therefore, he could not qualify for admission till the passing of target dale i.e. 2.11.1995, whereafter the admission in the current session was totally closed and classes lor current session started on 5.11.1995.
12. Likewise it was submitted that the waiting list did not confer any title upon the petitioner to claim admission alter the target dale for the current academic session. The principle of merit was to be followed and all the candidates, who had applied for admission, had been taken or admitted to M.Com. Programme according to merit list prepared in accordance with the Policy. Rule's and Regulation regarding such admission. Reliance was placed on:-
1. PL1 1995 Lahore 211,
2. 1995 CLC 1155 (Lahore),
3. 1984 SGMR 433,
4. PLD 1975 SC 667,
5. 1978 SGMR 327. And
6. PLD 1990 SC 295.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner was, however, of the view that reserving the seats for special classes, such as Teachers Sons etc. Was a clear-cut discrimination. Likewise it was submitted that the respondent had violated the principle of 'Equality of Law' as enshrined in Article 22 read with Article 25 of the Constitution, it was further submitted that the expiry of target date did not-clog the right of petitioner to admission if it was otherwise determined in his favour on merit, it was also alleged that the respondent was guilty of double standard i.e. For announcing scats on merit as well as making reservation of scats for certain classes of candidates. To support the above contention, reliance was placed on:
1. 1986 CLC 1425 (Peshawar) (DB)
2. PLD 1978 Quetta 131 and
3. 1981 CLC 1255 (Karachi).
14. Considering the above arguments it is to be seen if. The respondent has violated the Admission Policy, Rules or Regulations as framed on the subject. In this connection it may be pointed out that 'Equality before Law' has different connotations and has to be understood in its general sense rather than in its generic meaning. The right of citizens to be dealt with equally before law has to be regulated by the law enacted for the purpose. First of all the concept of 'Equality before Law' is to be correctly comprehended before any claim is based upon it. The dictum has laid down the basic principle that all men arc equal before the law. Thus all citizens arc cqurSflicfore law subject to ordinary law of land being administered by the ordinary Court. Bui it does not mean that all the laws must apply to all the subjects or that all subjects must have the same rights and liabilities, it is but natural that the concept of 'equality before law' does not involve the idea of absolute equality amongst the human beings which is physical impossibility. The Constitution guarantees a similarity of treatment and not identical treatment.
15. In the instant case, the respondent is an educational institution and performs its functions in accordance with the. Law. Rules and Regulations framed for such working and functioning under a corporate body i.e. The Punjab University. A citizen coming into touch with such a jurisdic person can claim the violation of principle of 'equality before law' if any discrimination is meted out to him.
I6. The petitioner is given similar treatment as is given to his fellow candidates falling in his category, it is an admitted fact that no candidate with lesser marks out of his category was granted admission by the respondent. In such a situation, the plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted that he was treated discriminately or unequally as compared to his fellow candidates.
Clause (2) of Article 25 of the Constitution does not recognize discrimination on the basis of sex alone. The dictionary meaning of 'discrimination' is very inoffensive, itmeans "unfavourable treatment based on prejudice, especially regarding race, colour or sex; good taste or judgment in artistic matters etc., the power of discriminating or observing differences; a distinction made with the mind or in action." (The Concise Oxford Dictionary). It further means, "making as distinction or difference between things; a distinction; a difference; a distinguishing mark or characteristic; the power of observing difference accurately, or of making exact distinctions, discernment". However, the discrimination against a group or an individual implies making an adverse distinction with regard to some profit, advantage, or facility. Discrimination thus involves an ingredient of unfavourable altitude or bias and it is in that sense that the expression has to be understood in this context, it is thus obvious that an act of an authority shall only be discriminatory if it discloses bias or mala fide. In the instant case it has not been shown that the respondent K.I,.Ft. C.C.
Acted with bias, malice or in a mala fide manner to take a decision with regard to admission of the petitioner. The lads would rather suggest that a merit list was prepared and admission was given to the candidates on its basis, it also shows that the merit list was strictly followed and no departure .Was.'made to enlist any candidate obtaining lesser marks than the grand total achieved by the-petitioner. The target dale has already passed. The academic.Session started on 5,1 1.1995. As such it will be inappropriate to reopen the matter of admissions particularly when the process has achieved finality. Even otherwise of merit loo. The petitioner has not been able to make out a ease for interference in the internal working ol respondent's college. There is nothing to show that denial ol admission to the petitioner was actuated by malice or prejudice.On the part of respondent. The writ petition being meritless is dismissed.